man on fire

I know it's been talked to death in progressive media spaces, but the fact that the sanctioned, expected response by a someone who is charged with public safety is to point a gun at an unarmed man on fire says more to me about the society we live in than the fringe upbringing of the man whose political act we are discussing.

For a good amount of people in here, it's easier to explain away the choice of violent action against self as mental illness, and overlook violent reaction against a person harming himself (to death) as societal illness. Yall will 100% roll your eyes I'm sure, but that officer with the gun mirrors your reaction in a lot of ways. 'EW KILL IT, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE', or something to that effect, I'm sure.

That reactionary indifference is what Bushnell was trying to strike at with his political act. Some folks are well practiced at it, to the point where someone's choice to commit that political act (and that's a key word, 'COMMIT', because it has the connotation of both a crime or infraction and inner conviction) has to be demeaned or explained away in a manner that wouldn't be necessary had the same person been taking countless others' lives in executing the orders of their commanding officers. Do we need to talk about the fringe upbringing of Israeli soldiers that shoot children and piss on corpses? Or the people who tiktok jokes about genocide of Gazans?

We've been inundated with horrific images from Gaza for months, and have been totally desensitized as a result. I personally sometimes actively avoid anything to do with Gaza because I can't stomach or comprehend the scope of it anymore. What happens when all people look away now in the hope of forgetting?